Post navigation

The Law & The State

“An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341

“The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” –Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, “Political Economy,” 1816. ME 14:465

I have noticed a very disturbing trait amongst Public Servants who have forged their careers in the low grade politicised Public Service that was welded in the Blair/Brown years. That of evading the Law and indulging in extra curricular activity to ensure that targets are met and political favour (and promotion) maintained.

I have particular personal experience of this, but as other investigations are being carried out into the public servants concerned, I would highlight the case of a Doctor who blew the whistle on unsafe practices in Abergavenny Hospital featured on Channel Four News last night. She thought she was protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).

The aptly named Aneurin Bevan Health Board decided to follow a course of action that I certainly recognise. Remember that somebody nearly died in this incident. The Health Board decided that its sacred cow reputation and targets were far more important than this Doctor. Dr Lucy Dawson brought two employment tribunal actions against the Health Board, on how they dealt with her whistleblowing on unsafe practices. PIDA is quite clear that the whistle blower is protected under the Law. The Health Board along with many other NHS Trusts then followed a well worn and illegal path.

Rather than be exposed at a Tribunal, lawyers acting for the Trust offered a pay off that was contingent on signing a gagging order. Dr Dawson then made the fatal mistake of relying on the Law (PIDA) to protect her and refused to sign .

The Trust and its Legal fee earners then started a smear campaign, never mind the truth, the Sacred cow must be protected at all costs.

Anybody who goes up against the State will tell you, you cannot win. It is impossible because the State will array against you its vastly superior financial resources to win its case by attrition until you throw the towel in. Failing that a campaign by extra judicial means will be commenced against you. If a medical professional can have her seventeen year hospital career terminated, what chance the man in the street.

Dr Dawson terminated her claim against the Health Board on the grounds of cost and now works as a locum. The State won, not because Justice was on its side but because it could buy the result it wanted.

We now have a legal system that is out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population other than the very rich or the desperately poor. Parliament can churn out as many bad Laws as it likes because they are impossible to defend and when the Law is used as a weapon to crush and oppress we are living in a tyranny.

A solution has to be found to this. A Libertarian relies on the just application of fair Laws that are equally applied called ‘Equality of Arms’. If Parliament cannot prevent its Laws being so widely disregarded by powerful agencies of the State, it is up to the general population to combine and seek a legal remedy through a voluntary Legal Defence fund, until public servants start losing their jobs and are prosecuted for breaking the Law and using extra curricular methods.

If twenty million of us paid into a legal fund at a pound a week, the Dr Dawson’s of this world might succeed. Not have to withdraw because of costs.

Do you think that the face of the State would change ? I think it would.

Andrew P Withers

{26 comments }

ChrisMAugust 5, 2010 at 13:47

everyone who has any reason to be greatful to the decent staff in the NHS can contribute to a reward fund for Dr Lucy Dawson, and give two fingers to the state. I’d like to see that on the news.

GildasAugust 5, 2010 at 10:20

Just EighteenOf course he did it at his mum’s instigation! Can I prove it ? No.

BayardAugust 4, 2010 at 22:01

G, well, you could probably find a kind person who would go round and beat the shit out of your ex-stepson for twenty quid.

GildasAugust 4, 2010 at 20:03

A brief comment. Legal insurance under house insurance is, as a commentator above rightly observed, quite tightly restricted. Usually it relates to mainly to issue in respect of the house itself (eg a boundary dispute) but even then there are restrictions. For example, there has to be a reasonably favourable advice from a barrister about the prospects of success before it kicks in.From memory, it is quite hard to make it apply to a workplace situation, or one such as this.

I merely add a salutary tale. I let the house insurance on my house run out last year, it was not from choice – I was actually too penniless to renew it, courtesy of my ex wife ( I’m not exaggerating. That’s actually true. I don’t want to go into the details. As I write I have

English VikingAugust 4, 2010 at 22:34

When you say teenage, do you mean under 16? If so, his mother is legally and financially responsible for him.

If not, try beating him with a stick until he wishes he’d never met you and would willingly give you his next 50 Giros in exchange for his hide.

HysteriaAugust 5, 2010 at 02:06

yup – when all else is lost and no hope remains – direct action might just work.

Post of a few days ago (“the good bits of Britain”) means of course in fact we get shafted – and then WE say “sorry”

BrianAugust 4, 2010 at 19:01

re OH @ 1 :Didn

Spiral ArchitectAugust 4, 2010 at 18:30

A government that is big enough to give you everything………is big enough to take everything from you.

English VikingAugust 4, 2010 at 19:01

Just a shame they never seem to get the first bit right, eh?

Joe PublicAugust 4, 2010 at 17:44

“We now have a legal system that is out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population other than the very rich or the desperately poor. ”

Not only the very rich & very poor, but also politicians. The 4 x expenses fiddlers currently being prosecuted were on Legal Aid for their claim that they were immune from prosecution because they claimed “Parliamentary Privilege”

BrianAugust 4, 2010 at 18:09

The MPs in question qualify for Legal Aid because they are defendants. Would it be fair to have to find your own legal costs when a fine or loss of liberty are at stake.If Crown Immunity was dropped then the taxpayer would pay the taxpayer damages or the corporate body would be taken to court, just as in meaningless trials against rail companies etc. Only if Directors of government bodies could be fined or gaoled for errors would things change for the better. But consider the “government policy” defence: Parliament is still sovereign and it should be the electorate and not the courts that punishes the offending government or offers remedies or both.

English VikingAugust 4, 2010 at 18:59

It would not be a pointless exercise to sue The Crown employee responsible if the punishment were not financial, ie. a damn good thrashing, confiscation of his house, pension, etc.

Joe PublicAugust 4, 2010 at 19:13

How many other people, (allegedly) caught fiddling expenses can try to use the

Nick2August 4, 2010 at 17:41

“If twenty million of us paid into a legal fund at a pound a week, the Dr Dawson

I did my little bit for Mr Hogan at the time. Nick was released but the government still got it’s money anyway.

My proposal would be that when a public body or even a large corporation starts legal action against an individual member of the public the court should determine how much the individual can afford to pay for their defence. The public body would then only be allowed to spend the same amount. This shoudl result in equality of representation.

I realise this is probablt impractical but at least it would be fair, and the lawyers wouldn’t like it which is a bonus.

Legal insurance is part and parcel of my home insurance. Check your policies

BrianAugust 4, 2010 at 18:31

Didn’t do Andre Power much good in July 2009 though. Your postings on the case here and here are depressing.

English VikingAugust 4, 2010 at 18:52

Wait until you come to use it for anything more than a consumer argument over a faulty TV, or some such like. Cost are capped, and cover only lasts for the period of cover, ie a maximum of 12 months. If you start a case in, say, the 10 month of your policy, your case will not even have seen the light of a Court Ushers clipboard before your policy expires. No problem, just renew the policy? ‘I’m so sorry, Sir, I’m afraid your cover does not include on-going cases; that’ll be 500 quid, please. Cancellation Sir, No problem, just need a 3 month notification of your intention to cancel to avoid the 200 quid cancellation fee’.

Come on OH, you know ‘the man’ is not going to help you in your hour of need.